Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sure, say whatever you want but please believe that no one is obligated to believe you on assertions only. Credibility matters, but sure, if you don't care about an honest representation of your beliefs just cite whatever you can manage to find regardless how lacking the factual knowledge the person has on the subject.
By asking for some data to support your assertions? This is the level you stoop to as a creationist so you're free to wallow in it.
QV please:
What in the world makes you think this refers to Noah?Luke 14:16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.
21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.
22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.
23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.
Why? I would have preferred a Biblical source over that garbage.He's lucky I cited any source outside the Bible.
You make a wild claim and asking you to support that claim is rude?Such demands for justification are rude, IMO.
Complete non sequiturIf he doesn't like what people believe, he's welcome to move.
And you make Kent Hovind look like a saint.You guys make the Ku Klux Klan and the Inquisition look good.
Luke 14:16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.
21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.
22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.
23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.
And what does "Luke" have to say about the fossil record? Does Luke say anything against ToE, or perhaps in support of ToE?
Depends on what you mean by evolution...
"Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
It's like I keep telling you AV. I believe the evidence provided by God over that of writings of fallible men. Man can corrupt the written word. Man cannot corrupt the physical earth.
How would you explain the fossil record, which is laid down in an exact manner that describes evolution with nothing out of place, without evolution?
It doesn't matter where it starts, it's where the evidence takes you that's important.
That would depend on the actual source of the variation,
...the actual variation that happens in nature doesn't account for amphibians going from land to water dwelling creatures.
The problem with Darwinian evolution is that it assumes a cause no one has ever seen on an evolutionary scale.
Which is an odd thing to say when Mendelian genetics is ignored in these debates.
The timeline is based on fossils, you will never get a Darwinian timeline from molecular clocks, they are notoriously unreliable.
Thanks Robert Frost.
Not really. There's basically only one source for variation and that's mutations.
Sure it does. We know this from both fossil and genomic studies.
You mean random mutation causing changes that are acted upon by natural selection? We see it on an evolutionary scale in the fossil record and genomic analyses.
By whom?Inheritance is discussed here all the time. Mendel, just like Darwin, didn't know about genetics though. He did solidify our understanding of inheritance, but Punnett squares don't take mutation into account.
Says who? You?
It depends on what you mean by corrupt, throughout Hebrew and Christians history the manuscripts have been maintained meticulously well. The Scriptures are known for text variation and as far as I can tell, little errors and alterations are in almost every chapter. Mostly spelling errors and grammar and over all it's a couple of percentage points actually effected.
I always thought it was a mark of authenticity that God used human instruments to pen and preserve the Scriptures.
Well with there being literally thousands of human ancestors in the fossil record and 3 maybe 4 teeth representing the evolution of chimpanzees I'd say the record is biased toward the continuous evolution of species. All the time in the world doesn't give you a cause.
Well with there being literally thousands of human ancestors in the fossil record and 3 maybe 4 teeth representing the evolution of chimpanzees I'd say the record is biased toward the continuous evolution of species.
I'm talking about the Earth, God's creation. Are you saying we should ignore the evidence left for us to examine?
Biology is not my field, therefore I generally leave comments in that area to those who have an expertise in it. Nevertheless, I do know that there is far more evidence concerning the evolution of Apes than just a few teeth. Also, ToE does not say we evolved from chimpanzees, although we are of the same genera, hominidae, and more closely biologically related than any of the other great apes.
It's a common complaint among researchers, I could show you examples if I thought you were serious.
Have a nice day
I'm talking about the Earth, God's creation. Are you saying we should ignore the evidence left for us to examine?
Biology is not my field, therefore I generally leave comments in that area to those who have an expertise in it. Nevertheless, I do know that there is far more evidence concerning the evolution of Apes than just a few teeth. Also, ToE does not say we evolved from chimpanzees, although we are of the same genera, hominidae, and more closely biologically related than any of the other great apes.
The human, chimp and neanderthal genome papers more than make up for the paucity of chimpanzee fossils.
Apparently I'm some kind of a Gap Theorist, I think there might have been a considerable amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2. Whatever the case, I don't see the age of the earth as relevant.
So your saying that mutations are the source for every adaptation in creation?
Almost 3/4 of the protein coding genes in the human genome have at least one indel per lineage as compared to Chimpanzee. The problem is that when this happens in nature it usually results in a frameshift.
You must be reading too much Talk Origins because what I'm reading tells a different story.
You assume it, it's not the same as quantitative data.
Mendel's experiments yielded two laws of inheritance that became the foundation for Genetics. Dominant and recessive traits account for a lot of variation while mutations have anecdotal evidence at best.
...while mutations have anecdotal evidence at best.
It's a common complaint among researchers, I could show you examples if I thought you were serious.
The Neanderthal paper was impressive and the Chimpanzee genomic comparisons were fascinating. However, Darwinian evolution has less credibility with the comparative genomics evidence then it does with fossils, which is really saying something.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?